> As usual with pieces critical of science ... But the article doesn't criticize science, in fact, apart from the word, science isn't even mentioned. The artic

> As usual with pieces critical of science ... But the article doesn't criticize science, in fact, apart from the word, science isn't even mentioned. The article criticizes scientists, science boosters and science journalists. None of those relate very well or consistently to science itself. The problems discussed in the article, having primarily to do with the difficulties in finding out what is actually so, is why science exists. Science is a (not the)solution to those problems. But to get the solution, one must learn how science works. That isn't even touched on in the article.